Marc Levine sets out to demolish the myth that "the jews" run the world. He set himself on this quest upon hearing a taxi driver tell him that no jews died in the world trade center and that the protocols of the elders of zion is accurate. To Marc Levine's credit he does cite brief extracts of the protocols and tries to demolish them but all he gives is a half assed effort. He doesn't come close to discussing them in depth. He's more interested in showing how ordinary powerless jewish citizens are/were victims of anti semitism in his neighbourhood and still are after 9-11, Muslims hate them although they've done nothing, blah blah blah. It is half decent film in that itdoes show the inhumanity of the nazis and some muslim extremeists (such as the ones who murdered jewish journalist Daniel Pearl) which we do have to be careful about, but it's really nothing more than a personal diary than a hard hitting political statement or refutation of the accuracy of the protocols.

Almost immediatly, he shows visuals of texts of the protocols in various languages including German, Persian, Russian and English. This is to demonstrate how far reaching this conspiracy has been in its one hundred years of existence. He has a few clips of an interview he did with Abraham Foxman, leader of the Anti Defamation League. One clip stood out as Foxman said about some Muslim leader at a world forum who claimed that Israel rules the world by proxy, largely thanks to America, "Here is a world leader thinking that he can stand up in front of the world and say what Hitler said." The reason for this reaction is understandable as some extremists who do not always think logically will use such words as license to incite hatred against innocent jews who do not have a hand in running the world. However, freedom of speech is an aboslute right. If we do not believe in it for some, we do not believe in it at all (I agree with Noam Chomsky on this).

Foxman's and others fears like this are not without foundation. In the second half of the movie, the viewer it shown scenes from arabic television of a three year old Muslim girls who has learned to hate the jews from the Koran, but also of a Muslim cleric saying that if there was ever a jew behind him, to slit his throat; for the glory of God we must fight the jew. "Allah Akbar," he cries out much to the delight and agreement of his audience. Plenty of innocent jews do suffer from Muslim radicals in Israel today, but what is kept from the audience is how Israel was created through Zionist terror and destruction of the Arab people; what is kept from them is how this never had to happen and would not have were it not for the Zionists. One can get a glimpse of this by watching Ted Pike's video, "Why the Middle East Bleeds," or read Albert Pastore's essay on 9-11 and the war on terrorism.

What is interesting is that Levine says that the protocols have been debunked hundreds of times and as early as a series of London Times articles in 1921. However, Henry Makow has dealt with the London Times article in his essay, Protocols Forgery Argument is flawed.

Quote:

We are told that The Protocols of Zion is a hoax, a "proven forgery" concocted by the Tsarist Political Police (the Okhrana) to incite anti Semitism and discredit revolutionaries.

But the "proof" is far from convincing.

It consists of three articles published in The London Times (August 16-18, 1921) by Philip Graves.

According to Graves, Protocols is a crude, chapter-by-chapter plagiarism of Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864).

It was easy to make this claim while Joly's book was unavailable. Napolean III's police confiscated it as soon as it was published.

But it is available now and I invite you to compare the two texts. In my opinion, they are entirely different in tone, content and purpose. At 140 pages, Dialogues is twice as long as Protocols. Most of it finds no echo in the Protocols

Makow then goes on to prove his point that Graves' argument falls to the ground when one goes through both texts and tries to find what Graves' says exists. Levine is either unfortunately very misinformed and ignorant of the incredible work Makow and others have done with their work on the protocols or he is deliberately deceptive; my money is on the former.

Levine being inspired to make this film on the protocols after hearing a taxi driver say no jews died in the world trade center has to tread on 9-11 conspriacy territory: Was there Israeli/Mossad prior knowledge? He not only speaks to the women who spotted these five dancing israelies cheering upon the planes hitting the towers, he also finds the warehouse where they were spotted. He then says they were released by the FBI after being found innocent of any wrong doing and then the viewer is presented with a clip from Israeli television of three of these men. One said, "We were only there to document the event." As the question on many websites(1, 2) goes, "HOW CAN YOU DO THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE? Marc Levine, obsessed with rescuing all jews from the image as subverters either misses or deliberately ignores this logical point and he fails to delive into the matter of the five dancing Israelis. He doesn't even mention Chertoff's ties to terrorists, or how he set free hundreds of Israeli spies that were caught running wild in America.

To my knowledge Levine does not mention the word Odigo; actually I can not remember if he does or not. Odigo was an Israeli owned company and Mossad front with offices in Israel and New York. Two hours before the planes hit, Odigo workers received a warning about the impending disaster. This is documented by Christopher Bollyn, and Levine does not even touch it. Either he is ignorant of this, or he is covering it up. Given that his film is about stopping anti-semitism, I suspect he may in fact be omitting certain things to save ordinary jewish citizens from ordinary gentiles who feel the only way to stop Zionist subversion is to attack a jewish shoemaker for example. First of all, many anti-zionists, including white supremacists would tell you that is not the way to affect political change and to save America from "the jewish threat."

Later on, Marc Levine quotes an extract from the protocols which indicate that election fraud will happen. One could make the argument (although Levine did not) that election fraud has occured long before the protocols. Of course it is perhaps better that he did not as this would not hold water for the simple reason that what matters is whether nations under the star of zion are in fact suffering from election fraud and being given leaders who will give and foster war for the benefit of the Zionists. He goes to Florida, the seen of the 2000 election debacle. He asks rhetorically, "How do the jews factor in to this?" He then shows an old woman with poor eyesight having a difficult time navigating her way through an electronic voting machine. Next are Florida citizens saying, "People just didn't know what they were doing." So retuation complete right? Wrong. Election fraud was well documented in 2000 and 2004. Not only that but the diebold voting machines seem to have in fact been under Zionist control. When you take this into account with the fact that George W. Bush has given us war for the benefit of Israel in more than one country in the middle east, and that Bush has jewish heritage, it is clear that zionists have in fact committed election fraud and given us leaders who want war just as the protocols state.

Finally, the last four protocols detail an incredibly devious programe of financial manipulation. They talk about withdrawing money from circulation, destroying nation states and unifiying them under common currency. If one examines, my take on the protocols, they will see this is exactly the case with the Federal Reserve (the debt scam) and the Euro dollar. And what about the CFR plan to integrate Canada, America and Mexico into one nation with a common currency and economy? And what about the upcoming cashless society? Clearly these are rhetorical questions to drive my point him that the protocols are mirroring history despite the nay-sayers words.

It's also no surprise therefore given Levine's horrible record in this film that he would not investigate the origins of the Federal Reserve for he would find key jewish names behind this nasty bank such as Warburg, Schiff, Rothschild and Rockefeller. Anyone who is in doubt about ought to test their doubts by either looking into Bill Still's movie The Money Masters (movie, script) or reading chapter three in Gary Allen's book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy." Sadly, Levine gives no mention to these facts.

The only strength about Marc Levin's film is that he illustrates the fact that plenty of irrational anti-semites exist and some would not even think twice about attacking random jewish civilians. He correctly shows the absurdity that all jews can be blamed for the terrible things in America. They are actually done for the benefit of zionists, many of whom are Jews, but as I have shown, Levine's film does not show this. Levine's film only appeals to those who are already convinced there is no zionist plot. It banks for example on people simply believing what he said about Graves debunking the protocols in 1921 while never hearing of Henry Makow or others like him who show that the protocols do in fact mirror history. But then again, I have my suspicion that these people when confronted with Makow's bulletproof arguments would assent to what he said anyway.

His film does not refute the accuracy of the protocols and it insults people like Henry Makow, myself and many others who have actually bothered to do serious looking into 9-11, the Mossad and the protocols. If you are looking for a hard hitting documentary with rigid philosophical arguments, you will not find it in Levin's film. Avoid it unless you want to see what feeble arguments nay-sayers have produced.

__________________
\"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.\"
-Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812)